ILNews

Opinions June 30, 2014

June 30, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court
The following opinions were issued Friday after IL deadline.

Keion Gaddie v. State of Indiana
49S02-1312-CR-789.
Criminal. Reverses conviction of Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement, holding that I.C. 35-44.1-3-1(a)(3), the statute defining the offense of resisting law enforcement by fleeing after being ordered to stop, must be construed to require that a law enforcement officer’s order to stop be based on reasonable suspicion or probable cause. On that basis, there was insufficient evidence against Gaddie to support the conviction.

Donald Murdock v. State of Indiana
48S02-1406-CR-415
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement, holding the evidence and reasonable inferences established Murdock knowingly or intentionally fled from a law enforcement officer’s order to stop that was based on reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.

Dexter Berry v. State of Indiana
49S04-1406-CR-416
Criminal. Reverses and remands with instructions to accept or reject the plea agreement as written. Rules that the court lacked the authority under terms of the plea agreement to impose on the defendant one year of work release as a condition of probation following his 10-year sentence. The trial court was allowed to order probation after the defendant served his sentence but it could not impose punitive conditions like restrictive placement.

Tin Thang v. State of Indiana
49S04-1402-CR-72
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B misdemeanor public intoxication. Finds based on the evidence the trial court could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had been intoxicated in a public place while endangering the life of himself or others. Justices David and Rucker dissent.
   
June 30
Indiana Court of Appeals

Dennis Samples v. Steve Wilson and Donald & Ingrid Bannon, husband and wife, and Ronald & Edna Bannon, husband and wife
60A01-1312-PL-518
Civil plenary. Affirms trial court denial of motion to correct error in judgment in favor of defendants, holding that Dennis Samples had not proven the court erred in finding the expansion of a dam on neighboring property encroached on his land or was a nuisance.

Anissa L. Tyler v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A04-1309-PC-428
Post conviction. Reverses denial of post-conviction relief; vacates convictions of murder and Class A felony aiding, inducing or causing robbery; and remands for retrial, finding the court erred in determining that Tyler received effective assistance of counsel.

Doaa I. Ebrahim v. Essam Otefi (NFP)
76A03-1309-DR-368
Domestic. Affirms denial of Ebrahim’s motion for relief from judgment from the trial court’s dissolution of marriage decree.

Darcel Edwards v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1311-CR-578
Criminal. Affirms placement split between Department of Correction and work release on an eight-year sentence for conviction of Class B felony dealing in cocaine.

Cheryl Rodriguez v. Sourthern Dunes Golf, LLC (NFP)
49A02-1307-PL-639
Civil plenary. Affirms judgment in favor of Southern Dunes.

Bernard A. Burrell v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1311-CR-431
Criminal. Affirms 12-year sentence for conviction of Class B felony dealing cocaine.

Katherine Fraze v. Floyd County Health Department, and City of New Albany and Animal Control (NFP)
22A04-1402-CC-62
Collection. Affirms trial court denial of motion to correct error in favor of the city limiting the number of dogs Fraze could keep on her property.
 
Anthony Ray Willoughby v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1307-PC-375
Post conviction. Affirms denial of post-conviction relief.
 
In re: The Visitation of W.G.R. (Minor Child) M.W.R., Father v. K.G. and D.G., Maternal Grandparents (NFP)
78A01-1312-MI-540
Miscellaneous. Remands order for grandparent visitation for findings of fact and conclusions of law.
 
Chad Thomas Gates v. Shannon Leigh Gates (NFP)
83A05-1401-DR-26
Domestic. Affirms trial court denial of father’s petition to modify custody.
 
Ralph Dennis Gabriel, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A04-1311-CR-585
Criminal. Affirms 14-year sentence for conviction of Class B felony burglary.

Robert Birk v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1310-CR-897
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class D felony possession of a narcotic drug and Class A misdemeanor driving while suspended.
 
James Pello v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A03-1312-PC-488
Post conviction. Affirms denial of post-conviction relief.
 
Walter L. Logan v. State of Indiana (NFP)
34A04-1311-CR-581
Criminal. Affirms 28-year aggregate sentence of Class C felony reckless homicide and Class B felony possession of cocaine.
 
Tyrone R. McGee v. State of Indiana (NFP)
15A05-1311-CR-575
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation.
 
Stephan Gallagher v. State of Indiana (NFP)
15A05-1301-PC-12
Post conviction. Affirms denial of post-conviction relief.
 
Brandon Scroggin v. State of Indiana (NFP)
64A04-1306-CR-312
Criminal. Dismisses as untimely Scroggin’s appeal of convictions of Class C felony receiving stolen auto parts, Class D felony counts of arson and intimidation, and Class A misdemeanor criminal mischief.

Diamond Staples v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A04-1403-CR-118
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation.

Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Tax Court issued no opinions by IL deadline Monday. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals issued no Indiana opnions by IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Do I have to hire an attorney to get co-guardianship of my brother? My father has guardianship and my older sister was his co-guardian until this Dec 2014 when she passed and my father was me to go on as the co-guardian, but funds are limit and we need to get this process taken care of quickly as our fathers health isn't the greatest. So please advise me if there is anyway to do this our self or if it requires a lawyer? Thank you

  2. I have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

  3. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

  4. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

  5. "Meanwhile small- and mid-size firms are getting squeezed and likely will not survive unless they become a boutique firm." I've been a business attorney in small, and now mid-size firm for over 30 years, and for over 30 years legal consultants have been preaching this exact same mantra of impending doom for small and mid-sized firms -- verbatim. This claim apparently helps them gin up merger opportunities from smaller firms who become convinced that they need to become larger overnight. The claim that large corporations are interested in cost-saving and efficiency has likewise been preached for decades, and is likewise bunk. If large corporations had any real interest in saving money they wouldn't use large law firms whose rates are substantially higher than those of high-quality mid-sized firms.

ADVERTISEMENT